Google+ Opens To Businesses With 'Pages'

karthikmns writes with news that Google is rolling out Google+ Pages, integrating businesses and brands into its social network. When Google+ launched, it asked businesses not to create user pages, which upset many companies who had grown accustomed to interacting with customers on Facebook. Today's update closes the gap between the two social networks in this regard, which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how annoying you find social marketing. "If you’ve established a personal Google+ profile before, then the features offered through a Page will be familiar. You can place people into Circles, which lets you share content with specific sets of users. You can launch video hangouts, which lets you have face-to-face conversations with your followers. And the Pages work through the site’s mobile app. ... But Google has made some key tweaks. The first is that a Page cannot add someone to a circle until that user has already added the page to one of their circles. In other words, a Page can’t start sending you messages until you’ve elected to add them to one of your circles. Another key change: the content on a Page defaults to public (as opposed to ‘My Circles’ for personal profiles) and Pages can’t share with extended circles."

Comments

Find: Bob Smith

[ackthpt]

Did you reall mean to find "Bob Smith, Corp" or "Bobsmith Co." or "Smith LLP"

I worry how this will play out.

Re:Find: Bob Smith

[Synerg1y]

I'd imagine the same as facebook?

They don't really bother anybody, it's just another store front so to speak.

Re:Find: Bob Smith

[Goaway]

Yes, just like all other Google products, where you can never find anything useful because of all the spam!

Features in the wrong order

[schlesinm]

Shouldn't Google+ worry more about getting people communicating with each other before they start throwing businesses on to the platform? Where is the API?

Re:Features in the wrong order

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the change in policy about the real names crap?

Re:Features in the wrong order

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they did change the policy on that, though I haven't tried using a pseudonym in g+.

Re:Features in the wrong order

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a pseudonym that still works on google+, though I haven't used it heavily, the real names police may only crack down on people who post a lot (or who get themselves reported)

Re:Features in the wrong order

[dskzero]

Yeah, this is frustrating. I'm just this close to leave it to rot and jump to Diaspora.

Re:Features in the wrong order

[schlesinm]

Judging from my Google+ feed, everyone else has already jumped. They had a golden window of opportunity with great press and they not only blew it, but they intentionally blew it. No API, the real name idiocy, it's almost as if they wanted to have a social network without having to actually understand how people use a social network.

Re:Features in the wrong order

[nepka]

Yep, it's hard without all the failures they did too. They could had at least finished the platform first. Now it's just empty, dead and I just don't see that changing anymore. The funny thing is how much Slashdotters (we, at the same time, absolutely hate Facebook) try to tell to follow some "interesting" people like Linus or other tech geeks. They just don't get it either. I have no interest in following them, I want to follow my friends and talk with them. So does 99% of the Facebook users. Google+ doesn't offer anything new either, so there isn't any reason for anyone to change, especially when everything is already happening on Facebook and Google+ is really, really dry.

Re:Features in the wrong order

[dskzero]

Replying also to GP: The problem is that, unless FB turns into some totally useless thing or G+ gets a media thunderstorm coming, people won't move from FB, no matter how many celebrities or tech geeks do move.

Re:Features in the wrong order

[Riceballsan]

Diaspora has more or less no hope of even making it into half recognition. Screwing up at 10x the significance google did. Step 1. Generate tons of starter funds donations etc..., 2, Generate hype, more hype, ask for more donations. 3. Launch a prototype, so full of security holes, bugs etc... that 3/4ths of tinfoil hats realized it was in their best interest to steer clear of the product. 4. Make no more anouncements for a year and a half, let whatever remaining sparks of hype that weren't crushed by step 3, smoulder and fade away. Step 5. Send another donation request and wonder why nobody takes it seriously anymore.

Re:Features in the wrong order

[lptport1]

I just got my invite the other day. I've chosen to ignore it.

As far as I'm concerned, Diaspora is DOA.

Re:Features in the wrong order

[dskzero]

... well I thought it looked alright. I hadn't really taken the time to do much more than tinkering with it. The concept was, though, very intriguing.

Re:Features in the wrong order

[PerfectionLost]

Seriously. That second request for donations really didn't work out for them so well did it. Personally I couldn't believe they did that without first offering up either a public service, or an easy installation of shitty software. If they set up a yum distro that lets me install it I'd consider it.

Re:Features in the wrong order

[Bucky24]

Is there actually anyone using Diaspora?

Re:Features in the wrong order

[tlhIngan]

There's a few hard core people on G+.

One I know is because he's so anti "walled garden" and pro-Open Source, so he posts lots of stuff that way.

Another I know is using a Facebook/G+ cross poster.

That's about it, really. Nothing really significant enough for me to check it daily - I only log in maybe once every few weeks just to clear the "1" away from my GMail.

No, I don't use Facebook much either, but things seem to be "happening" there. If I was Joe User, I wouldn't move to G+ when everything's happening just fine with Facebook. One of those "it's working and I get my stuff done - why should I bother with G+ and have to still check Facebook?" things.

Re:Features in the wrong order

[Riceballsan]

Oh I agree, the concept was fantastic. If they had released something half way up to the hype, something that didn't have so many security vulnerabilities to the point that they couldn't find something in your profile that couldn't be hacked, on the first demo, and had it actually launched back when there was hype. G+'s biggest criticism is that they don't have the API's up to strike while the iron is as hot as it's going to get. Diaspora was weak because... well the time for it to strike it big and move up was back when it got media coverage and people were still talking about it... I believe that was 2009 was it's peak of publicity.

Re:Features in the wrong order

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Only diasporate people.

Re:Features in the wrong order

[swillden]

Where is the change in policy about the real names crap?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/google-shifts-stance-on-google-anonymity-will-support-pseudonyms.ars

Re:Features in the wrong order

[Chrisq]

Another I know is using a Facebook/G+ cross poster.

Well his lifestyle choice is nobody's business but his own.I know that some fundamentalists would disapprove but I say if it works for him then he should be free to get on with it.

Re:Features in the wrong order

[AP31R0N]

But the Facebook API is what makes me dread going to my Facebook account. No one on G+ has told me about getting a new calf or asked me to join their gang. My G+ page is just me, my friends and Wil Wheaton (oh and Felicia Day).

Re:Features in the wrong order

[derrickh]

The API is at https://developers.google.com/+/api/

D

Re:Features in the wrong order

[schlesinm]

The API is at https://developers.google.com/+/api/

D

From the link: "The Google+ API currently provides read-only access to public data." Or as Steve Yegge refers to it: "the Stalker API".

Re:Features in the wrong order

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true that Google should have done a marketing campaign much bigger, however I think the transition is slow. I don’t think we see in the immediate, a migration to the system.

http://germanromeroblog.com

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

The first is that a Page cannot add someone to a circle until that user has already added the page to one of their circles. In other words, a Page canâ(TM)t start sending you messages until youâ(TM)ve elected to add them to one of your circles. Another key change: the content on a Page defaults to public (as opposed to âMy Circlesâ(TM) for personal profiles) and Pages canâ(TM)t share with extended circles.

What is this inane gibberish, how is it news for nerds? Does anyone care about the groups system on the BBS I wrote in the '90s? Thought not!

Interacting?

[vlm]

I deleted my FB account a year or two ago, but

many companies who had grown accustomed to interacting with customers on Facebook

I never saw much "interaction" unless you mean spamming with marketing messages, or simply ignoring them. Is/was there any other form of FB interaction?

Re:Interacting?

[SomePgmr]

Of course you're right, it's mostly marketing. But some companies do a good job of responding openly to criticism or simple questions on facebook.

Re:Interacting?

[residieu]

There were pleas to "like" them in various games in order to get minor virtual rewards. I guess that counts as interaction.

Re:Interacting?

[nepka]

Not all of them spam like that, especially small business owners. I have friends around the world and spend most of my year living elsewhere too, and especially in Asia some expats have small businesses on the side, like restaurants or baking things you can't get elsewhere. When they post "I'm baking (food we eat in my home country), they just went to oven!" it really doesn't seem like bad marketing. So I go visit, grab a beer and buy and eat a piece or two while talking with the guys at the same time. In addition to that, I don't really mind when the restaurants I visit post some party pictures (relaxed pictures, not "everyone is fucking drunk" ones), it doesn't bother me either. Of course, somehow in Asia stuff like that has a much more personal feel. And you can easily find new interesting people that way, and find the restaurants via your friends or people you meet. This is why Facebook is so good for it - you find stuff you don't even know to look for, via connections.

Of course, it's your own fault if you follow something like Walmart on Facebook.

Re:Interacting?

[vlm]

Not all of them spam like that, especially small business owners.

I do see your point, that a heck of a lot of people follow Ms Limor Fried (misspelled?) and she posts a heck of a lot of good stuff on G+ but a lot more people would be able to find and follow a G+ ladyada.com page.

Ian Lesnet from Dangerous Prototypes always posts to his blog, which is perfectly OK, but I imagine a lot more people would follow +DP than +Ian.

Uncle Leo and TWIT probably don't qualify as merely being small businesses anymore, but I could see that none the less being easier to find. Hmm... +Triangulation is a lot easier than guessing if its +Leo and/or +Tom Meritt or Merrit or WTF.

My Debian Circle has 55 people in it, and my ham radio operators circle has 784 people. I'm thinking it would be a heck of a lot simpler to just circle +Debian or +ARRL.

I thinking of FB "Coca Cola" "monster energy drinks" and similar pages, which as I remember were pure spam.

Re:Interacting?

[dskzero]

That's the "Interaction" they speak about. Though every once in a blue moon, they advertise some contest or something that might be worth reading.

Re:Interacting?

[batkiwi]

Canon Australia does the following through facebook:
-photo contests
-"what's your best tip for a new photographer" discussions
-"why do you shoot photos?"

etc.

And they routinely give away free stuff to good posts.

I would call that interaction. It's creating conversation and adding value in addition to simply marketing.

Re:Interacting?

[Anonymous Coward]

A few small businesses near me, including my favorite chain of you-pullit junkyards, had a FB page where an employee and/or the owner would respond to questions or whatever, (usually pretty honestly as these companies weren't big enough to have a PR agency.) I wouldn't follow the page for something like Google or Ford or whatever, of course.

Re:Interacting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you're dealing with the wrong companies. I've seen added value stuff from a lot of the companies I deal with.

Re:Interacting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies do pay attention to Facebook, even if they don't always respond back publicly. For example, the company I work for does take criticisms on Facebook to heart because they are public... gripers get the attention of other gripers, and it snowballs. But actually replying is above our pay grade, so most gripes never get answered on Facebook.

I suspect this is true of other companies as well.

I feel like...

[joocemann]

... Google needs to finish refining the product and then re-produce (since they did it before) the media campaign they carried out to drive excitement and interest in Google+. So many people came, got in, found few friends in the system, and left their G+ accounts stagnant --- or came, and didn't even get in --- that they really need a massive campaign to drive interest again. And since most people that use social networking already know about G+, they should approach it as such; they should be saying "come pop in again, and get your friends in for real this time" or something of the sort.

Like most of the people I know with G+ accounts, I appreciate it and its merits beyond facebook, but the long transition from the level of contact I have via FB to any level close to that in G+ looks like it is so far out that I hardly ever check G+ at all. Not only that, I see absolutely no trend of migration. I came to G+, got a few friends, invited some that came, and since then there has been NOTHING.

Come on Google! For your sake, and also for those of us who recognize your product quality, make yourself visible! (Its not like you don't have massive advertising, for free, within your reach, lol).

Re:I feel like...

[Anonymous Coward]

And since most people that use social networking already know about G+

[citation needed]

Re:I feel like...

[Etherized]

Google could afford one hell of a marketing campaign if they wanted to, but I don't see much evidence of this. Why did they not do a full on media blitz at launch?

I can only assume that + is internally still considered a sort of "soft launch" and they won't start mass marketing until they reach feature parity with Facebook. Maybe they're hoping to "seed" Plus with early adopters now, who will make the service more attractive when it "really" launches, but they run the risk of losing a lot of those early adopters before launch even happens

I actually use Plus (and not Facebook) and it's a fine service, but unless they make some major moves to drive adoption very soon, it's just not going to go anywhere in the long term.

Re:I feel like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. If you paid attention on your current social networking platform in the past few months, you would notice that most of the people you network with had some form of participation in conversation about G+.

That is unless your idea of social networking is the craigslist message system and you log in once every two months to see if anyone said any more racist and belligerent crap (as is usual there).

If you want me to dig up citations and spoonfeed you, you'll have to stop being Anonymous Coward and show some form of Identity for anyone to care.

Re:I feel like...

[dskzero]

Not to mention the early adopters who will run away at the change of the service.

Re:I feel like...

[93 Escort Wagon]

If you want me to dig up citations and spoonfeed you, you'll have to stop being Anonymous Coward and show some form of Identity for anyone to care.

That's pretty ironic, actually.

Re:I feel like...

[mcgrew]

Not really. If someone's logged in, there's more than a pretty good chance that they'll get notification that someone has responded and can go back and read the response to their comment. With an AC there's little reason to respond, since there's little liklihood the AC will see your response.

I generally ignore ACs unless I'm moderating and one says something that might be of interest, but I never respond to their comments unless they say something stupid that needs to be countered AND if someone has modded them up.

Re:I feel like...

[hoppo]

There's just no compelling reason to use G+. Everyone I know is on Facebook, and it's not like G+'s UX sets itself so far above anything else on the web that friends will drop Facebook in droves.

G+ is a Facebook knockoff, and Google is going to have to do something pretty drastic to shake that perception if they are to see an uptick in real users.

Re:I feel like...

[93 Escort Wagon]

I generally ignore ACs unless I'm moderating and one says something that might be of interest, but I never respond to their comments unless they say something stupid that needs to be countered AND if someone has modded them up.

But do you respond anonymously, as this person did when he/she chose to make disparaging comments about posting anonymously?

Re:I feel like...

[joocemann]

Is the indication of irony only a tool to disprove the point? When I deliberately responded that way, I felt the irony was instructive and exemplary.

Don't let one way of understanding be the only way.

Cheers. (Did I just suggest we are having drinks, or am I posing a kind formality?) Get me?

Re:I feel like...

[swillden]

Its not like you don't have massive advertising, for free, within your reach, lol

Actually, Google doesn't have free advertising within its reach. Not as much as you might think, anyway. Every Google+ ad they show that displaces a paid ad has a very definite and easily-measurable cost. And even ads that don't displace paid ads (Google often chooses not to show ads if nothing particularly relevant is available) have a non-zero cost to Google because they increase "ad blindness" in users.

Re:I feel like...

[Peganthyrus]

Hell, my circles *leapt* enthusiastically onto G+, then were largely driven away because they're all prone to using Funny Names On The Internet. My G+ stream went from being a happening thing to a ghost town.

Re:I feel like...

[mcgrew]

But do you respond anonymously?

I never comment anonymously. What's the point of commenting if nobody will see your comment?

Re:I feel like...

[Synn]

> Why did they not do a full on media blitz at launch?

It hasn't launched yet. As a biz account user, I wasn't even able to create a plus account until last week.

Sweet!

[cshark]

So now, all of my cats can have their own page! I love it. I'll do one for Fluffy, and one for Buffy, and one for Muffy, and one for Satan (he's incontinent). Rockin!

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your cats have, or are, businesses?

Re:Sweet!

[vlm]

Your cats have, or are, businesses?

New to the internet? Let me introduce you to http://icanhascheezburger.com/

URL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why get http://facebook.com/pepsico if you can get http://plus.google.com/111883881632877146615 !
Huge hit on billboards, no doubt.

Re:URL?

[fyngyrz]

Actually, they've gone one better. You want to see Pepsi's page on google? type in "+Pepsi" on Google's search page or in the Google search bar of your browser. There it is.

Re:URL?

[nepka]

That just brings me usual search results, with pepsi.com at top.

Re:URL?

[bluelip]

Go to google.com, type +pepsi

Get it yet?

Re:URL?

[gbjbaanb]

fantastic - love the linked stuff in the stream, especially the bloodied polar bears captions "you want a coke mother fucker".

But of course, even though that looked like a stream on pepsi's page, it was really just search results. Too bad that I can't really see which one was the real pepsi google+ page (glad to see their policy on real names is working fine).

In short - Google+ is a total failure, which is a pity. They need to stop trying to be like facebook and start being like a communications hub where we can share all the google products (and our own) in a central location. *Then* they might get some use out of it. Keeping it like a mini blog is just not working.

Re:URL?

[nabsltd]

Go to google.com, type +pepsi

Get it yet?

Yes, Google has destroyed an important feature of their search engine (using +term to mean that term absolutely has to appear on the page to count as a result) just to keep from businesses from asking for human-readable URLs in Google+.

Re:URL?

[kenboldt]

using Google, you're doing it wrong.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=%2Bpepsi

Re:URL?

[nepka]

Yep, still doesn't work. Judging from the comment under me, I'm not the only one either.

Re:URL?

[Inda]

search results, with pepsi.com at top for that too

Re:URL?

[bluelip]

Adapt.

Use quotes to surround text that is to be explicitly included.

Re:URL?

[flimflammer]

Weird. Works for me and I have nothing to do with Google+

Re:URL?

[flimflammer]

They didn't destroy it. All you have to do is put the term in quotes.

Re:URL?

[makomk]

Not just that, but they did it by silently ignoring the + for quite a while... to the point that it took me ages to figure out why it wasn't working anymore. (Of course, the only reason I needed to use it so much in the first place was because Google's spelling correction feature has gone malevolent and started mangling searches for specialist things into the more common search it thinks you wanted. Sigh.)

Re:URL?

[flimflammer]

It's funny to see people abuse mod points seemingly pointlessly.

Re:URL?

[Virtual_Raider]

using Google, you're doing it wrong.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=%2Bpepsi

Hate to break it to you but this is absolutely not the same and not better. If you type www.facebook.com/business you land on the business page straight away, and the first thing you see is whatever content business placed there.

If one follows your method, you land on a Google search page where the page you look for is one of many links. Yes, it is the top link but you are still on google, you still see the listing of other random crap (or related crap if you're [un]lucky). It takes an extra click to get to the goods, and all the extra links are potential distractions that in some cases will take you away from the business you were looking for originally. plus.google.com/business would be a much cleaner solution.

Re:URL?

[kiwimate]

Either way - doing it myself in Google, or using your link - gets me a standard search page of results, with pepsi.com at the top. There's no reference to Google+ on the front page.

And if you legitimately could say "you're doing it wrong" ... that kind of proves how useless it is, doesn't it? The point is it's supposed to be easy to get there. The methods I'm seeing described here are anything but easy.

Re:URL?

[kenboldt]

When I use the link I gave, or if I type +pepsi into google, it does exactly what it is supposed to do, and takes me directly to the Pepsi Google+ page.

But then, I seem to be aware of how to use the internet. :P

Re:URL?

[kenboldt]

I don't have the same experience as you. If one follows my method, you land directly on the Pepsi Google+ page. No extra clicks, a lot less typing, and so much easier than typing out a complete url address.

Re:URL?

[kenboldt]

Not for me, straight to the Pepsi Google+ page.

Re:URL?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I use the link I gave, or if I type +pepsi into google, it does exactly what it is supposed to do, and takes me directly to the Pepsi Google+ page.

But then, I seem to be aware of how to use the internet. :P

Dude...seriously? You're a fuckwad, you know that?

The poster you replied to makes a good point. Forget about whether you are "aware of how to use the internet" (did I mention you're a fuckwad?). If it doesn't "just work", then it's pointless. Even if it did "just work" the way you're claiming (arrogantly and wrongly) it does, it'd still be stupid compared to Facebook. Which is easier to understand - go to facebook.com/company_name, or go to Google, type in the company name along with a symbol, and hope it comes up?

Fuckwad.

Re:URL?

[kenboldt]

Awwwwww, how cute, the AC is offended.

The use of a :P as a sign that I'm just giving a friendly ribbing is lost on this one.

Re:URL?

[nabsltd]

They didn't destroy it. All you have to do is put the term in quotes.

Since this was never required before, and there isn't any documentation that says this is required (in fact, the only documentation for the "+" is for the Google+ Direct Connect), I don't see why I shouldn't expect it to work the way it always did.

Re:URL?

[flimflammer]

I dunno what you're talking about. I learned about putting terms in quotes several years ago from Google's own help pages. Putting terms in quotes has been supported as long as using +terms were. If they've been light on that information lately that is a problem, but it's not some new feature. I've never used +terms before, it has always been quotes.

More importantly

[fyngyrz]

It looks, at least, like Google has abandon the "Real Name" policy. Looking at the Google+ Privacy Policy and Google TOS pages today, I could not find any mention of a real name requirement. Unless I missed something (possible), it looks like Google did the Right Thing after considerable pressure from the community at large:

• Google TOS
• Google+ "Privacy Policy"

Anyone know any different? Is it actually permissible to have a pseudonym-based account on Google now?

Re:More importantly

[ganjadude]

wait... you mean that my sig has no power against you??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Re:More importantly

[fyngyrz]

Couple of typos, sorry:

"abandon" should have been "abandoned"; and the last sentence should be "Anyone know any different? Is it actually permissible to have a pseudonym-based account on Google now?"

Re:More importantly

[nepka]

They have huge limits on your account if you use pseudonym instead. And they only backed out of real name policy as it become impossible to verify with different nationals and they started losing users. Of course, they are still losing users.

Google just doesn't seem to get the full picture. They imitate Facebook but do it poorly. Lets take for example this pages change. They didn't implement pages properly, they only modified the profile system a bit and actually restricted pages. Google+ pages don't allow HTML or anything else like Facebook does. The absolutely worst thing is the url though; With Facebook you get facebook.com/nintendo. Companies can easily put that in to ads and other material. With Google+ the url is http://plus.google.com/58493672095786225. Awesome! Google just doesn't see the whole picture.

Re:More importantly

[fyngyrz]

They have huge limits on your account if you use pseudonym instead.

What are those limits? More to the point, where are they? They aren't on the TOS page, at least I didn't see anything like that.

Re:More importantly

[fyngyrz]

With Google+ the url is http://plus.google.com/58493672095786225. Awesome! Google just doesn't see the whole picture.

Just type: +Nintendo or +Pepsi into your browser's google search bar, or into google search directly. Takes you right to the page. Much easier than a URL. Once there, you are on the URL, so if you like, you can bookmark it.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

They have huge limits on your account if you use pseudonym instead.

What are those limits? More to the point, where are they? They aren't on the TOS page, at least I didn't see anything like that.

And how can they possibly know? Am I really Stan Goodwald or Henry Stabenger or maybe Alf Stickleback? Would you believe "John Smith"?

Re:More importantly

[nepka]

No it doesn't, it gives me normal search results. Besides, that still isn't an URL like facebook.com/nintendo that you can put to your advertisements.

Re:More importantly

[Synerg1y]

Good find!

Breaks 100% of web standards. It's tough to be in google's shoes though.. do you copy facebook 90% 80% or 70%, facebook dues urls in type a, do we use type a or type b. Myself, I've never gone facebook.com/pepsi, nor do i plan to, nor will i go +pepsi, --> google "pepsi facebook" is good enough for me without needing to remember useless corporate shit. Then again I drink pepsi, I don't see a reason to go to their website for anything, unless my computer gets a soda dispenser that mixes formulas for me. You can nitpick google all you want for doing things different ways, but it's all apples and oranges in the end...

Back to why they broke the web standard, they should have implemented both, how is plus.google.com/##### efficient? Nobody will even try to remember this, where it the front facing documentation on +[company name]? Why not implement both? It's not easier to use google's approach if you don't know about it, but what's funny is neither one helps if you can't spell the company name, which most of tend to not mimic letter for letter.

Re:More importantly

[kenboldt]

using Google, you're doing it wrong.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=%2Bpepsi

Re:More importantly

[fyngyrz]

Speaking only for myself (anecdote != data), +[name] is quite convenient -- much more so than a URL, standards or not -- and I suspect I'll have no trouble remembering it.

Re:More importantly

[icebraining]

They have asked some of the users for a scan of a government issued ID.

Re:More importantly

[icebraining]

Breaks 100% of web standards.

How so?

Re:More importantly

[David Gerard]

You've missed that, whatever the stated rules, the suspensions and blockings continue.

Re:More importantly

[David Gerard]

Better - if you're name's not a Western-looking WASPonym, they'll look at the scan and still reject it.

Don't Be Evil - Just Racist.

Re:More importantly

[Synerg1y]

umm.. not sure if your trolling but, don't talk about the web if you don't know how to use google or what a url is...

http://www.w3.org/Addressing/

If you don't understand why HAVING TO USE google's search engine to utilize the + feature does not conform to a url (the thing you use to access websites) then Idk what to say to you, alone indeed. Try the astronomy section of slashdot.

Re:More importantly

[nschubach]

google "pepsi facebook" is good enough for me without needing to remember useless corporate shit.

Link #2: https://www.google.com/#q=pepsi+google ("pepsi google")
Link #3: https://www.google.com/#q=google+pepsi ("google pepsi")

Those searches aren't all that difficult either.

Re:More importantly

[icebraining]

But it's not an url, nor have they ever claimed it to be. Why would you think it's an url? It's a query term for Google Search.

Re:More importantly

[Synerg1y]

They are trying to replace a url based approach with their own.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

Read this.

Re:More importantly

[pavon]

No they aren't. They are providing a shortcut into their search, just like Firefox keywords, or the many !codes in duckduckgo, or even the I'm feeling luck search.

Re:More importantly

[icebraining]

That doesn't mean it "breaks" the web standards. It just means they don't use them, and use searches instead.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

Still getting normal search results asshole.

Re:More importantly

[Synerg1y]

So if I wanted to access plus.google.com and I happen to be using lynx and I wanted to access pepsi directly, please advise what would I do?

Re:More importantly

[Synerg1y]

I get that automation is useful, that is not the topic here, the topic is google MAKING YOU use their search bar for THEIR product and the only way to USE their + feature is to use google search bar. This would be the equivalent of having to go to facebook.com and searching from there, which is fine, but that's not how it's done is it? If it were up to google, google search would be the web, but that's out of context...

Re:More importantly

[icebraining]

Open https://plus.google.com/111883881632877146615/posts?

There's nothing in the URL standard that says they have to be "friendly".

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

What browser are you using? Searching for +Pepsi on google.com took me directly to Pepi's +page in Firefox, IE, and Chrome? I don't think +Nintendo works.. but I don't think Nintendo has a +page yet, so that'd only be expected.

Re:More importantly

[tycoex]

Are you using an out of date browser or something? It goes strait to the G+ Pepsi page for me.

Re:More importantly

[nepka]

Well, at least I'm not, and it gives just normal search results in every browser (Chrome, Opera, Firefox) and in both .com and my country's TLD. And as noted, others seem to have the same issue.

Re:More importantly

[pavon]

The same thing you would have to do with tons of other CMS systems that use opaque numbers for users/articles rather than something more friendly.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

But Facebook URLs are printed on brochures, displayed on banners, ... Nice URLs are still desirable.

Re:More importantly

[fyngyrz]

So if I wanted to access plus.google.com and I happen to be using lynx

Lynx? Lynx ??? Dude... shoot yourself.

Re:More importantly

[skribe]

The biggest problem with G+ is that they've rushed to release. Even the badge code for pages isn't ready. For a startup it looks bad but people would probably just shrug it off, for google it's a fucking catastrophe.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.google.com/intl/en/+/policy/content.html has the same "User Profile Name" section as before this, the policy is very much in place still for profiles that you or your public relations firm manage for you.

Re:More importantly

[bstender]

Here's one solution to the URL problem: http://gplus.to/

Re:More importantly

[kmoser]

How annoying. If I wanted to visit pepsi.com, I would have entered "pepsi.com" into my browser's URL bar. If, on the other hand, I want to see Google search results for the word "pepsi", I enter "pepsi" into the Google search field.

Re:More importantly

[Omestes]

I'm not refuting you, but... Have they? Do you have any proof of this?

In other words: "[citation needed]".

Re:More importantly

[Serpents]

As much as it pains me to say this, nepka is right in this case...

Re:More importantly

[Serpents]

still, neither points me to their G+ profile...

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

With Google+ the url is http://plus.google.com/58493672095786225. Awesome! Google just doesn't see the whole picture.

Just type: +Nintendo or +Pepsi into your browser's google search bar, or into google search directly. Takes you right to the page. Much easier than a URL. Once there, you are on the URL, so if you like, you can bookmark it.

but it's a little bit harder to put in advertising material.

Re:More importantly

[nschubach]

Sure they do. The first search, second link is their Google+ profile where the second link above has the Google+ profile as the third link.

By searching Google for "pepsi facebook", you still have to click on the links in Google, just like you have to click on the link for the Google+ profile in the links above.

Re:More importantly

[kenboldt]

Then you are still doing it wrong. You are supposed to click the link ;)

Darn ACs, you just can't teach them anything.

Re:More importantly

[kenboldt]

Well, I have no idea where along the way you are screwing things up, but it works fine and dandy for me.

Re:More importantly

[silanea]

[...] Google+ pages don't allow HTML or anything else like Facebook does. [...]

And that is a bad thing because...?

Re:More importantly

[silanea]

Firefox Nightly, logged in Google account, takes me to search. Which browser and version are you using?

Re:More importantly

[tycoex]

Chrome, whatever the latest version is.

It works on both my desktop running Windows 7 and my laptop running Ubuntu 11.04.

Both are using Chrome though.

Re:More importantly

[Serpents]

only when I'm logged in but most people I know don't log in just to search google

Re:More importantly

[coolmadsi]

[...] Google+ pages don't allow HTML or anything else like Facebook does. [...]

And that is a bad thing because...?

Not allowing HTML on user pages was what made Facebook a lot more appealing to people who didn't like all the HTML on user pages on MySpace.

Re:More importantly

[silanea]

Sorry, in that case I must have misunderstood the PP. I read the comment as saying "Facebook allows HTML, G+ does not, therefore G+ is worse". I do have a FB account but I do not remember seeing any custom HTML on the few non-personal pages I have visited there. Obviously not allowing such customisation is a Good Thing, of course.

Re:More importantly

[coolmadsi]

Sorry, in that case I must have misunderstood the PP. I read the comment as saying "Facebook allows HTML, G+ does not, therefore G+ is worse". I do have a FB account but I do not remember seeing any custom HTML on the few non-personal pages I have visited there. Obviously not allowing such customisation is a Good Thing, of course.

I was agreeing with you that allowing user HTML on pages isn't great, and I think your interpretation of the comment is correct. I've not seen any Facebook pages with page owner added HTML either, which is what I suspect the original post was about, but wouldn't be surprised if it is possible.

Re:More importantly

[halltk1983]

Did you change your search engine to Bing?

Re:More importantly

[halltk1983]

Firefox 7.0.1 on OSX works fine. Also logged into google account.

Re:More importantly

[halltk1983]

They don't make you. You're welcome to type out or click the ridiculously long URL. It was asked why there wasn't a shortcut. There is.

Re:More importantly

[DaVince21]

I found a list of limits on the Google blog, I believe. Can't be bothered to check it now, but it just involves stuff like "pages can't receive notification emails; they can't subscribe to other people unless they subscribed the page; pages can't use hangouts on a mobile phone"... Nothing that you'd actually really need on a page.

About time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, this should have been their FIRST job when making the profile system.

Hopefully (for them) they never pissed off the people who would have wanted to make a "business" page, be it a page for a huge brand, or just a group profile for some teens garage band.
That's if they even allow the latter. Let's see..

So APPS users are allowed to use it now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or by business they mean people who do not use google to host their services?

Re:So APPS users are allowed to use it now?

[tresstatus]

Or by business they mean people who do not use google to host their services?

apps users have been allowed for a week or so now.

Re:So APPS users are allowed to use it now?

[icebraining]

But if you use an Apps account belonging to someone else (like my Uni account), remember the domain admin can see *everything* you put on G+.

Or just say fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

This never-ending race to "social" communication is ridiculous.

How appropriate that to prove myself, I must type "scorns".

Non-public profile and opted-out search results.

[Anonymous Coward]

The first is that a Page cannot add someone to a circle until that user has already added the page to one of their circles. In other words, a Page can’t start sending you messages until you’ve elected to add them to one of your circles. Another key change: the content on a Page defaults to public (as opposed to ‘My Circles’ for personal profiles) and Pages can’t share with extended circles."

Please google, bring this to user profiles as well!

User should be finded only if user wants and not by everyone.
If my name is AC and I have opted out from public searching then:

1. X does search "AC" in google+ and finds out only some results who have not wanted to hide their existing but not me.
2. I get notification from google+ that someone made search with "AC" and would have otherwise found me if I would not have opted out
3. I can allow X to find me or just forget the notification
4. When click I allow X to find me, X gets notification that earlier search have gained more results
5. X can add me to list

What if my friends friend want to add me to list but can not find me because I opted out? Then my friends friend could as well ask trough one of my friends about contacting me and my friend asks from me is it OK or not.

So my friends could actually work as my friends so I would not get every possible hipper out there to trying contact me or their friends would not try to contact to me if they don't want it (situations like friends GF/BF trying to do something such with me).

Just Give Me Search

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no longer interested in anything google has to offer other than the search text field. I don't even like the javascript bloat that's crept in over the years.

Re:Non-public profile and opted-out search results

[nepka]

That's a stupid idea. Many people don't want others what they have searched for.

Looks Like Facebook's Fan Page . . .

[NicknamesAreStupid]

. . . with a way to organize 'fans'. This will probably tie into Google Analytics.

Missed Opportunity?

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing I don't understand is why Facebook and Google have not added a feature to allow people to sell things over social networking websites. I know lots of people who make things and sell them but they don't have the know-how to create a web store. I don't see why a social networking site couldn't include the ability for companies and individuals to sell items. Seems like an opportunity ready to happen.

Re:Missed Opportunity?

[Anonymous Coward]

youtube did this recently

http://mashable.com/2011/10/17/youtube-merch-store/

Message to Vic Gundotra

[Anonymous Coward]

Too little, too late. Why don't you focus on fixing the real problems like the Real Names fiasco your sub-70IQ brain caused? God dammed hypocrite, your name is not even Vic!

Take your stupid identify platform and shove it up your ass!

Glass

Same name as an Apple software product

[WebManWalking]

Baiting Apple for the lawsuit's free publicity. Pretty transparent ploy.

Re:Same name as an Apple software product

[flimflammer]

...You actually believe that?

Re:Same name as an Apple software product

[amRadioHed]

Yeah, calling a page on the internet a "Page". Very clever Google...

+ operator

[Barryke]

I see Google now wants me to google ' +Brand Or Business That I Want To Videochat With '
So that is why they disabled the + search operator, now requiring two double quotes surrounding the word you insist on actually appearing in every search result.

Re:+ operator

[dotancohen]

Wow, you're right! I did notice that my +something searches were not returning the results that I expected, but I had no idea that this was a permanent change. Thanks for posting the workaround.

Re:sterilize and purge itards

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the curse is real. He felt a tickle in his bootyass....

Should have done this first

[Vyse of Arcadia]

I think it's fairly obvious that Facebook's enormous success is at least in part because so many businesses have gotten on board. Even little mom and pop stores have "like us on Facebook" stickers everywhere. Which in turn makes people, even old people and such that aren't usually so tech-savvy, want to check out this Facebook thing. Which makes more businesses want to sign up, and we have a nice feedback loop going.

Yes, people need to be on + for its success, but Google has just taken too long to get the ball rolling. There was a brief surge of interest when all sorts of people were trying it out, but then everyone but tech people simply went back to Facebook where they can play games and get malware and be marketed at.

nepka is an MS troll / PR agent

[Anonymous Coward]

See his post history. New user + all pro MS/FB & anti Google posts.

Still looks semi-baked

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

So I've created a "page" for my business. It seems my own G+ account is linked to this "page" so only I can admin the page... I'm sure this will be fixed, but surely its kind of obvious?

Also obvious, but is it possible to create a "page" via a Google-Apps account? 'cos that would make sense really.

But I can see no obvious way to do these things, and whilst I'm sure it will be solved in time, it's annoying because as a business, I feel compelled to secure my "page" right now.

Re:Still looks semi-baked

[Flixie]

It's possible to create a page from an apps account. Apparently, they are working on a multi-admin function.

Linux has its own page now...

[markjhood2003]

From Linus on G+:

Linus Torvalds - 4:24 PM - Public So the google pages thing might actually work as a reasonable place to do kernel release announcements. I always felt like I wouldn't want to do them on my personal page, but having a G+ page dedicated to Linux makes the announcements actually make sense. So if you are following me because you expected to see kernel announcements, and you haven't figured out already that I'm very spotty with that, you might want to unfollow me, and follow the Linux page instead. Of course, I might be spotty there too. It's not like I'm the most organized person in the world. But at least there is one release announcement there now.

And the actual announcement:

Linus Torvalds - 3:53 PM - Public By popular demand... Linus Torvalds shared a Google+ page with you. Linux - you know you want it

Re:Linux has its own page now...

[tyrione]

From Linus on G+:

Linus Torvalds - 4:24 PM - Public So the google pages thing might actually work as a reasonable place to do kernel release announcements. I always felt like I wouldn't want to do them on my personal page, but having a G+ page dedicated to Linux makes the announcements actually make sense. So if you are following me because you expected to see kernel announcements, and you haven't figured out already that I'm very spotty with that, you might want to unfollow me, and follow the Linux page instead. Of course, I might be spotty there too. It's not like I'm the most organized person in the world. But at least there is one release announcement there now.

And the actual announcement:

Linus Torvalds - 3:53 PM - Public By popular demand... Linus Torvalds shared a Google+ page with you. Linux - you know you want it

So yeah, like who gives a rat's a$$ about kernel announcements who isn't already following the kernel changes on a daily basis?

Naming policy

[v1x]

Apparently, their naming policy is still very much geared toward individual users. Upon trying to create a page for my non-profit, we were first required to update our profile, and then warned that our name was not consistent with their naming policy, so I had to update it. After doing so, it allowed me to create a page, but the profile has a warning saying that it has been disabled because our name was flagged as being inconsistent with their policy. I understand that this is in an alpha stage, but the process needs to be significantly simpler, without imposing unnecessary restrictions on names and such.

Haters gonna hate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly I don't get all the hate surrounding Google.

It's pretty clear at this point that FB is playing dirty (they admitted it). I'm sure /. has been infested by these FB shills paid to have seemingly legitimate accounts and then trying to speak dirty every single time any Google product is mentioned.

You've got more than a 5-digits ID here? I'm not taking your "criticism" (it's more like whining) seriously.

Google+ is alive and well. I see very cool stuff posted there daily by friends, family and people I don't know (that I did add in a "following" circle).

You haters are foolish if you think companies and mom&pop stores are not going to *also* add "Follow us on G+" buttons on their sites.

Google+ may not have the user base FB has, but Google+ is here to stay, no matter how much you FB shills hate it...

Who cares? G+ has failed....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why ....
- should we bother with logging on another Social Network site?
- give Google more Personal data so it can link it to our anonymous profiles?

Even if it is as good as facebook there are many people I've spoken to that won't give their personal data to Google, and hence the social network will be patchy.... To keep in touch you will always be login to Facebook also....

Frienster, My Space, Google Plus.....

About time

[rabidmuskrat]

I'm glad they finally got around to adding this. Business support will be a big help with getting people to make the shift from Facebook to Google+.